'Has A History': High Court Denies Bail To 21-Yr-Old Booked For Rash Driving Which Claimed Nine Lives Last Year In Ahmedabad

Dismissing the bail plea of a 21-year-old man booked for causing an accident in 2023 at Iskon Bridge in Ahmedabad which claimed nine lives, the Gujarat High Court said that material on record indicated that he had a history of rash driving and had earlier caused several vehicular accidents due to such driving.

The Applicant sought bail in connection with the FIR for offences under Section 279 (rash or negligent driving endangering human life), 337 (causing hurt by an act of rash or negligent behaviour endangering human life or personal safety), 338 (causing grievous hurt by an act of rash or negligent behaviour endangering human life or safety),304 (Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder) under IPC as well as under Sections 177(general provision for Penalty), 184 (driving dangerously) and Section 134 (b) duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person) of Motor Vehicles Act.

Justice M.R. Mengdey while deciding the bail application observed that “The material available on record also indicates that the applicant has a history of rash driving and in the past also has caused several vehicular accidents because of such rash driving”.

"The material available on record also indicates that there was sufficient light at the place of incident in the form of street lights and therefore, it prima facie appears that the applicant was in a position to notice the presence of the people on road from some distance. Despite the same, the applicant had continued to drive the vehicle in an excessive speed. The report from the manufacturer of the car indicates that the applicant had not applied breaks to the vehicle till 0.5 seconds prior to the incident and even till 0.5 seconds prior to the incident; the speed of the vehicle was 130.5 kilometers per hour," the court added.

The applicant had contended that he was not aware that there would be people present on the road at the time of midnight and therefore the applicant had driven the vehicle with an excessive speed. Rejecting this court said that as per material on record in the form of witness statements, who were the co-passengers of the applicant in the car, indicates that while the applicant was driving the vehicle in an excessive speed, these witnesses had asked him to reduce the speed of the vehicle.

"However, the present applicant did not yield to the said request and continued to drive the vehicle with an excessive speed with impunity," the court underscored

The Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant contended that investigation is over and the chargesheet has been filed and the applicant withdrew the previous application with the liberty to file again after six months if the trial did not progress.

The Senior Counsel then contended that there are 190 witness cited in the chargesheet and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon therefore, any further incarceration of the applicant would be pretrial conviction.

He then submitted that the applicant had filed a revision application against the charge under Section 304 of IPC that went unheard and contended the applicant should be charged under 304A of the IPC in which the imprisonment is for two years whereas the applicant is in custody for sixteen months.

The Advocate then pointed out the medical tests that indicated no presence of alcohol in the blood of the applicant and that he was not under an intoxicant substance at the time of the incident.

He then argued that the incident occurred at 1:00 am and the applicant was unaware of the presence of a mob of 50-60 persons on the road and therefore, the applicant did not have the knowledge and should not be charged under Section 304. He submitted that the applicant reported the accident to the police while he was on his way to the hospital and also informed the doctor. He lastly contended that the applicant informed the truth to the authorities and thus, it is not a case of 'Hit and Run'.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the application by stating that the applicant was driving his Jaguar recklessly and, consequently, killed nine people, leaving twelve injured, out of whom one remains unconscious in a coma.

Several eyewitnesses including co-passengers of the applicant testified to the fact that the applicant was driving at high speed, despite being warned by his friends to reduce his speed. According to the report, instead of reducing speed at the appearance of the crowd, the applicant accelerated his car further, and the brakes were applied after the crash.

He further indicated that the applicant had a record of careless driving with several accident records and, on top of this, tried to forge documents in pursuit of some claims.

The Court while deciding whether the offence is committed under 304 of the IPC did not go into the aspects of the offence since the issue is pending at large before this court in the Revision Application. The Court then observed in the order “Considering all these aspects, no case is made out to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the present Application is dismissed.”

Case Title: Tathya Pragneshbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. I.H. Syed, Senior Advocate with Ms Zeal Shah, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Hardik Dave, Public Prosecutor.

Click Here To Read/Download Order